Academic freedom vs. Christian orthodoxy: finding a balance
Monday, February 22nd, 2010
What happens when a university’s ideal of academic freedom clashes with its statement of faith? That’s the core question at the heart of a recent essay describing the tension between evangelical orthodoxy and academic freedom at Wheaton College.
The essay speaks directly about Wheaton’s upcoming change of leadership (shortly after the article’s publication, Wheaton announced its new president), but the issues are relevant to any Christian college or university that cares both about academic integrity and theological orthodoxy.
Does requiring all faculty at a Christian school to adhere to a very specific statement of faith lead to intellectual stagnation on campus? Wheaton’s statement of faith, like that of many Christian schools, excludes not only followers of non-Christian religions, but also fellow Christians who don’t agree with the school’s take on controversial (and often “non-salvation”) issues like Creation or homosexuality. This can result in the school not hiring otherwise superb teachers due to doctrinal disagreements; or even in the firing of professors whose beliefs don’t conform to the school’s.
It’s not an easy question to answer—everyone acknowledges that without requiring some adherence to a statement of faith, a Christian school risks drifting away from the Christian values it was founded to promote. On the other hand, there’s a point at which a statement of faith becomes too restrictive, needlessly keeping out Christian educators whose presence would be a real benefit to the school.
The article raises these questions in a challenging but fair way. What’s your reaction to the issue?
Consider how you’d answer these questions:
Did you (or do you) attend a Christian college that held faculty to a specific statement of faith? If so, have you seen examples of such policies getting in the way of academic ideals? Any instances where the policy protected the school from unbiblical ideas? As you read the article above, are you more sympathetic toward the traditional (keep a strict statement of faith) position, or to the progressive (allow faculty from outside the statement of faith) position?


